cavalry_duplicate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Only one behavioral trait is disclosed: selection restoration after duplication. With no annotations present, the description should cover more details like error conditions, permissions, or placement of duplicates, which are missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. No unnecessary words, and the behavioral note is added efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, the description is adequate but could improve by stating what the tool returns (e.g., duplicated layer IDs) or any side effects beyond selection restoration.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with parameter documentation, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; 'Layer IDs to duplicate' is already stated in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Duplicate layers' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like cavalry_delete_layers or cavalry_create_layer. The additional note about restoring selection further clarifies behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cavalry_create_layer for new layers). There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.